Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Crap, no more Drop Podding into terrain. My marines might explode

ok i take back what i said GW are such fan boys

"What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.


- Games Development, November 2008"



This seems different somehow.

I'm glad they are currently making an effort. I wonder what the odds are that it will continue?

Beastmaster units are still good, they just aren't insanely good. It still makes sense to use some, just not base an army around the concept.

The DA codex is being dug back out today. I'm really curious to see if Deathwing will be more interesting; getting essentially Assault Terminators with the updated Cyclone Missile Launcher seems viable.

This update definitely has the fanboy inside me jumping for joy.

Crap, the works machine won't let me access the FAQs.

Anything in there about the Tau?

Cheers

Andrew

nope

Crevab wrote:"What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.


- Games Development, November 2008"

I'd honestly love it if GW would reprint the DA and BT books with these changes in them!

I think my favorite change all around is that techmarines can now try to repair vehicles that they are embarked upon.

Some interesting stuff in there. It would seem I can no longer attach a homunculus to my Harlequin unit in order to give them FNP.

Crevab wrote:nope

Shame,

Thanks for looking though.

Cheers

Andrew

Sarigar wrote:The DA codex is being dug back out today. I'm really curious to see if Deathwing will be more interesting; getting essentially Assault Terminators with the updated Cyclone Missile Launcher seems viable.

This update definitely has the fanboy inside me jumping for joy.

You mean MIXED units with updated Cyclones AND updated Thammer/SS's!

WIN!

GW SW FAQ wrote:Q. Is the +1 Strength from a Thunderwolf Mount a modification to the base characteristic? (p62)
A. Yes.

So A Wolf Lord on TWM is only S9 with a thunderhammer, as it is a modifier....?

I thought the same about Arjac. Seriously, its not got a TH profile when thrown ....s igh.

I can't believe this hasn't been brought up before, this one is a gem for SM armies.

Q. When a unit with the And They Shall Know no Fear
special rule regroups, do they get to immediately move up
to 3" as well as moving as normal that turn? (p24)
A. Yes.

I remember this being a big deal back in 4th ed and was debated harshly

EDIT: I wonder if this means that the 3" move does not count as movement. i.e. shooting heavy weapons

Here is another one:

Q. If Marneus Calgar chooses to pass a Morale Check
using his God of War special rule does he, and any unit he
has joined, count as Fearless? (p84)
A. No.

And DA have all the nice new rules SMs have: apothecary FNP, improved SS, Improved Cyclone ML, Improved SL, etc...
wow

Bah nevermind, I misread it

Sarigar wrote:The DA codex is being dug back out today. I'm really curious to see if Deathwing will be more interesting; getting essentially Assault Terminators with the updated Cyclone Missile Launcher seems viable.

This update definitely has the fanboy inside me jumping for joy.

did they also get rid of the 4th edition restriction on ravenwing bikers not being able to turboboost during their scout move?!?!?! it sounds like they've thrown them into 5th edition finally.

We used pretty much these rules as "gentlemen's rules" for 2/3 of of tournies. Glad to see them made official giving those armies a nice boost.

And why 2/3? We would also play 'Ard Boyz style every few months and require straight codex/FAQ.

warboss wrote:

Sarigar wrote:The DA codex is being dug back out today. I'm really curious to see if Deathwing will be more interesting; getting essentially Assault Terminators with the updated Cyclone Missile Launcher seems viable.

This update definitely has the fanboy inside me jumping for joy.

did they also get rid of the 4th edition restriction on ravenwing bikers not being able to turboboost during their scout move?!?!?! it sounds like they've thrown them into 5th edition finally.

Nope they didn't add that to the changes...it looks like DA still can't Scout + turbo boost, although their Land Speeder appears to still be a scoring unit as well!

The Voidraven Bomber has gotten waay better

Q: Can a void mine be used regardless of the speed the
Voidraven Bomber is moving at in its Movement phase?
(p47)
A: Yes.
Q: A void mine is used in the Movement phase. How does
this effect what weapons can be fired by the Voidraven
Bomber in the Shooting phase? (p47)
A: The void mine does not count towards the number of
weapons a Voidraven Bomber can fire that turn.

They can do a 36" movement, drop a str 9 blast lance weapon that only scatters d6, and also get a 4+ cover save...

Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

The 3" plus 6" move was "legal" anyway, even if it seemed a bit...odd.

The Marneus Calgar question doesnt answer the issue, which is about NR! - as not functioning as a Fearless unit deos not stop you from taking NR! wounds, at all...

nosferatu1001 wrote:The 3" plus 6" move was "legal" anyway, even if it seemed a bit...odd.

The Marneus Calgar question doesnt answer the issue, which is about NR! - as not functioning as a Fearless unit deos not stop you from taking NR! wounds, at all...

I honestly didn't know that the 'extra' 3" move was legal...I guess I always played the way I did in 4th. But the Marneus Calgar one is odd for sure. I think they meant that that they don't take NR wounds, otherwise why would they include that question? But as of right now it is useless as it reads.

Also the SW one about the Thunder wolf Str upgrade is a bit ambiguous. Do they mean a +1 str as a straight modification or a +1 str that is added straight to its base stat line. As said before, if they mean the it as a modification, then the FAQ is not needed, as that is the way it is worded in the codex like any other weapon/wargear modification (frost weapons). Only if it changes the base stat line before a PF modification (for example) is a FAQ answer really needed.

They really didin't put too much thought in these, its like they put it all together in one afternoon.

None of my armies got an updated, hrm.

padixon wrote:They really didin't put too much thought in these, its like they put it all together in one afternoon.

Which is kinda funny since from the looks of things, they've been sitting on some of them for over a month before publishing.

The recent rerelease of the DA upgrade sprue makes a whole lot more sense all of a sudden eh ?

Crevab wrote:Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

Took me a second to get what you were talking about but you're right they did (since you now attach ICs to units before ANY unit is deployed). That also fixes the Scorpion Phoenix Lord as well!

nosferatu1001 wrote:The 3" plus 6" move was "legal" anyway, even if it seemed a bit...odd.

The Marneus Calgar question doesnt answer the issue, which is about NR! - as not functioning as a Fearless unit deos not stop you from taking NR! wounds, at all...

Agreed, but I think we can at least figure out the point of including the ruling, even if it isn't worded as well as it should be.

padixon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The 3" plus 6" move was "legal" anyway, even if it seemed a bit...odd.

The Marneus Calgar question doesnt answer the issue, which is about NR! - as not functioning as a Fearless unit deos not stop you from taking NR! wounds, at all...

I honestly didn't know that the 'extra' 3" move was legal...I guess I always played the way I did in 4th. But the Marneus Calgar one is odd for sure. I think they meant that that they don't take NR wounds, otherwise why would they include that question? But as of right now it is useless as it reads.

Also the SW one about the Thunder wolf Str upgrade is a bit ambiguous. Do they mean a +1 str as a straight modification or a +1 str that is added straight to its base stat line. As said before, if they mean the it as a modification, then the FAQ is not needed, as that is the way it is worded in the codex like any other weapon/wargear modification (frost weapons). Only if it changes the base stat line before a PF modification (for example) is a FAQ answer really needed.

They really didin't put too much thought in these, its like they put it all together in one afternoon.

Well, I disagree that the extra 3" was 'legal' before because ATSNKF simply removes the prohibition agains the unit moving 'normally' on the turn it regroups and a unit that moves 'normally' can move up to 6" in the movement phase, so even if you make a 3" consolidation move, the unit should still only be able to move another 3".

But I digress, because its a moot point now!


And as for the Thunderwolf ruling, it seems pretty clear to me...the base stat is modified, this can only mean as opposed to it being a standard modifier that is applied during the game. So yes, Powefist models on a Thunderwolf are striking at S10.

Crevab wrote:Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

They fixed Karandras, even!

yakface wrote:

Crevab wrote:Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

Took me a second to get what you were talking about but you're right they did (since you now attach ICs to units before ANY unit is deployed). That also fixes the Scorpion Phoenix Lord as well!

Does that mean they fixed Tyranid Primes, too?

Melissia wrote:

yakface wrote:

Crevab wrote:Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

Took me a second to get what you were talking about but you're right they did (since you now attach ICs to units before ANY unit is deployed). That also fixes the Scorpion Phoenix Lord as well!

Does that mean they fixed Tyranid Primes, too?

Fixed them how, exactly?

If you can attach IC units before any unit is deployed, couldn't you attach a Tyranid Prime to a deep striking Warriors unit?

Or does this ruling only apply to Marines because GW doesn't like anyone else?

yakface wrote:

Crevab wrote:Oh hey, they fixed Shrike

Took me a second to get what you were talking about but you're right they did (since you now attach ICs to units before ANY unit is deployed). That also fixes the Scorpion Phoenix Lord as well!

nosferatu1001 wrote:The 3" plus 6" move was "legal" anyway, even if it seemed a bit...odd.

The Marneus Calgar question doesnt answer the issue, which is about NR! - as not functioning as a Fearless unit deos not stop you from taking NR! wounds, at all...

Agreed, but I think we can at least figure out the point of including the ruling, even if it isn't worded as well as it should be.

agreed, i think it does in a typical GW incompletely worded sort of way. is there any other situation other than taking no retreat wounds that this distinction would make any difference? i can't think of any. unless there is some additional distinction about them not being actually fearless when choosing to auto pass the test, it has to have a bearing on no retreat otherwise they specifically made a clarification for no reason other than to take up space in the document.

yakface wrote:
Nope they didn't add that to the changes...it looks like DA still can't Scout + turbo boost, although their Land Speeder appears to still be a scoring unit as well!

eh, 3/4 of an update to 5th edition is 3/4 more than i had this time yesterday. perhaps they'll address that (and the scoring speeder of doom that no one takes, lol) in version 1.2...